On 07/23/2015 10:27 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Christoph Lameter wrote:
The only possible downside would be existing users of
alloc_pages_node() that are calling it with an offline node. Since it's a
VM_BUG_ON() that would catch that, I think it should be changed to a
On 07/23/2015 10:27 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Christoph Lameter wrote:
The only possible downside would be existing users of
alloc_pages_node() that are calling it with an offline node. Since it's a
VM_BUG_ON() that would catch that, I think it should be changed to a
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > The only possible downside would be existing users of
> > alloc_pages_node() that are calling it with an offline node. Since it's a
> > VM_BUG_ON() that would catch that, I think it should be changed to a
> > VM_WARN_ON() and eventually fixed up
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, David Rientjes wrote:
> Eek, yeah, that does look bad. I'm not even sure the
>
> if (nid < 0)
> nid = numa_node_id();
>
> is correct; I think this should be comparing to NUMA_NO_NODE rather than
> all negative numbers, otherwise we silently ignore
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Christoph Lameter wrote:
The only possible downside would be existing users of
alloc_pages_node() that are calling it with an offline node. Since it's a
VM_BUG_ON() that would catch that, I think it should be changed to a
VM_WARN_ON() and eventually fixed up because
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, David Rientjes wrote:
Eek, yeah, that does look bad. I'm not even sure the
if (nid 0)
nid = numa_node_id();
is correct; I think this should be comparing to NUMA_NO_NODE rather than
all negative numbers, otherwise we silently ignore overflow and
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > alloc_pages_exact_node(), as you said, connotates that the allocation will
> > take place on that node or will fail. So why not go beyond this patch and
> > actually make alloc_pages_exact_node() set __GFP_THISNODE and then call
> > into a new
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> > index 2d73807..a8723a8 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> > @@ -3158,7 +3158,7 @@ static struct vmcs *alloc_vmcs_cpu(int cpu)
> > struct page *pages;
> >
On 07/21/2015 11:31 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
>> The function alloc_pages_exact_node() was introduced in 6484eb3e2a81 ("page
>> allocator: do not check NUMA node ID when the caller knows the node is
>> valid")
>> as an optimized variant of
On 21/07/2015 15:55, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> index 2d73807..a8723a8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> @@ -3158,7 +3158,7 @@ static struct vmcs *alloc_vmcs_cpu(int cpu)
> struct page *pages;
> struct
On 21/07/2015 15:55, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
index 2d73807..a8723a8 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
@@ -3158,7 +3158,7 @@ static struct vmcs *alloc_vmcs_cpu(int cpu)
struct page *pages;
struct vmcs
On 07/21/2015 11:31 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
The function alloc_pages_exact_node() was introduced in 6484eb3e2a81 (page
allocator: do not check NUMA node ID when the caller knows the node is
valid)
as an optimized variant of alloc_pages_node(),
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
index 2d73807..a8723a8 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
@@ -3158,7 +3158,7 @@ static struct vmcs *alloc_vmcs_cpu(int cpu)
struct page *pages;
struct vmcs
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
alloc_pages_exact_node(), as you said, connotates that the allocation will
take place on that node or will fail. So why not go beyond this patch and
actually make alloc_pages_exact_node() set __GFP_THISNODE and then call
into a new
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 15:55 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> The function alloc_pages_exact_node() was introduced in 6484eb3e2a81 ("page
> allocator: do not check NUMA node ID when the caller knows the node is valid")
> as an optimized variant of alloc_pages_node(), that doesn't allow the node id
>
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> The function alloc_pages_exact_node() was introduced in 6484eb3e2a81 ("page
> allocator: do not check NUMA node ID when the caller knows the node is valid")
> as an optimized variant of alloc_pages_node(), that doesn't allow the node id
> to be -1.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> The function alloc_pages_exact_node() was introduced in 6484eb3e2a81 ("page
> allocator: do not check NUMA node ID when the caller knows the node is valid")
> as an optimized variant of alloc_pages_node(), that doesn't allow the node id
>
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> The function alloc_pages_exact_node() was introduced in 6484eb3e2a81 ("page
> allocator: do not check NUMA node ID when the caller knows the node is valid")
> as an optimized variant of alloc_pages_node(), that doesn't allow the node id
> to be -1.
The function alloc_pages_exact_node() was introduced in 6484eb3e2a81 ("page
allocator: do not check NUMA node ID when the caller knows the node is valid")
as an optimized variant of alloc_pages_node(), that doesn't allow the node id
to be -1. Unfortunately the name of the function can easily
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 15:55 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
The function alloc_pages_exact_node() was introduced in 6484eb3e2a81 (page
allocator: do not check NUMA node ID when the caller knows the node is valid)
as an optimized variant of alloc_pages_node(), that doesn't allow the node id
to be
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
The function alloc_pages_exact_node() was introduced in 6484eb3e2a81 (page
allocator: do not check NUMA node ID when the caller knows the node is valid)
as an optimized variant of alloc_pages_node(), that doesn't allow the node id
to be -1.
The function alloc_pages_exact_node() was introduced in 6484eb3e2a81 (page
allocator: do not check NUMA node ID when the caller knows the node is valid)
as an optimized variant of alloc_pages_node(), that doesn't allow the node id
to be -1. Unfortunately the name of the function can easily suggest
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
The function alloc_pages_exact_node() was introduced in 6484eb3e2a81 (page
allocator: do not check NUMA node ID when the caller knows the node is valid)
as an optimized variant of alloc_pages_node(), that doesn't allow the node id
to be -1.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Vlastimil Babka vba...@suse.cz wrote:
The function alloc_pages_exact_node() was introduced in 6484eb3e2a81 (page
allocator: do not check NUMA node ID when the caller knows the node is valid)
as an optimized variant of alloc_pages_node(), that doesn't allow the
24 matches
Mail list logo
